The Loneliness of Reading

[Annamariah]

I have one friend who has pretty similar taste in books than I do. Okay, maybe I should rephrase that one. We don't always like the same books, but I know what she likes, and there are certain books that I know whe both love. So whenever I come across one of those books, I recommend it to her or buy it her for a birthday or Christmas present and then I've got someone to talk about it with

Then again, there are many wonderful books I can't talk about with anyone, partly because none of my friends have read them or even if they have, they haven't experienced it the same way I have. In that sense reading is a very solitary pastime.

Sometimes reading a book can have a great effect on me, but I'm not only unable but also unwilling to share that experience with anyone. Perhaps if a book had a great impression on me, I don't want to share it with others because I'm afraid they won't like it as much as I do, or perhaps I'm a selfish person and don't want them to like it too much, because I found the book first

[stlukesguild]

I don't know - reading seems a personal thing anyway - literary culture, if it ever existed in the US in the sense that you seem to imagine it (it surely didn't in Canada), is long dead. Then again, humanism has been out here for quite a while, and there are too many books to begin discussing anyway. My question is, was it ever here to begin with?

I can see a sort of intensively literary culture elsewhere - China, for instance, put the writing of improvisational poems and prose on its Exam system in the 7th century, which essentially created a whole middle-class of literary people, writing occasion poems whenever events happened, and such, but in the West? Well, perhaps the fame of Byron and Longfellow say something - but I am unsure if people actually discussed them -

{edit} There is undoubtedly no less of a literary world than there is an art world or a music world. The fact that there are more works of art or of music than any of us can possibly ever digest does not prevent artists or art lovers or musicians or music lovers (or film lovers, chess lovers, theater lovers, history buffs, etc...) from discovering gatherings of individuals who share common interests and from engaging in a dialog and discussion of those art forms. I do not assume that every passionate art lover or music lover has seen or heard every single work of art or piece of music that I have. They do, however, have enough of a shared experience of certain artists and composers that we can engage in a dialog within a common frame-work. We can reference certain artists or composers or styles by way of comparison; we can talk about forms with a degree of assuredness that we will not be facing blank and confused stares. {edit}

Certainly the literary world has similar venues for shared dialog on literature as might be found for nearly any other obsession. I know of several independent book stores which sponsor literature discussion groups that are far more interesting than the common Oprah recommended book groups. Not long ago there was an attempt locally at resuscitating the concept of the Salons ala those held by Mallarme and Gertrude Stein... intimate gatherings of those interested in discussing the arts in general. By the same token I have come across any number of individuals within an academic setting who have been more than thrilled to discuss the love of books.

St. Lukes, you for instance seem inclined toward Spanish language materials, and a little bit of German. Drkshadow would seem inclined toward speculative fiction, Mortalterror toward classical writing, and Neely toward predominantly English Classics. I myself, I confess, have a somewhat eccentric taste - but where is the connection there?

Everyone of us has our own favorite niches... although I somewhat think you simplify matters far too much. Mortalterror certainly reads the Roman texts more than I... but he is also experienced in Hemingway, science fiction, Shakespeare and any number of other areas. My own reading tends to focus upon poetry and prose of the more "fantastic" nature (as opposed to the realistic novel) and draws as much from French, English, American, and Classical literature as it does from Spanish and German... with a healthy dose of Italian, Russian, Middle-Eastern/Arabic, and Japanese thrown in. The same breadth of interest and experience might be found in a great many here. While certainly none of us share the same exact experiences... in literature of otherwise (and it would seem that would actually be quite boring) we do share enough of a common basis to be able to discuss a work of literature which we have read and and loved with another who may not have read the same.

Again... you have fallen too much for your beloved post-Modernist theories that we... humanity as a whole... cannot even begin to speak to each other because we do not share these common experiences. Certainly, there are aspects of art... and certain works of art in particular... that are largely a learned vocabulary... that cannot be appreciated without putting forth a specialized effort. There would seem to be much more in art that can be quite well understood by those who simply share the experience of being human as well as a degree of understanding of literature... music... art as a whole. If the dialog we have here is worthless as we all are products of different experiences (literary and otherwise) then what is the point of your participation? {edit}

Then again, there are many wonderful books I can't talk about with anyone, partly because none of my friends have read them or even if they have, they haven't experienced it the same way I have. In that sense reading is a very solitary pastime.

Can you only discuss a book with someone who shares your experience of the work? It would seem to me that someone with a different experience might bring a different perspective... come at the book from an angle fully new and unexpected by you. That would seem to be far more valuable than someone who merely parrots or reinforces your own experiences.

[IceM]

Surely reading has a loneliness factor, especially for a 16 year old teenager. At my age I'm expected to party, maybe drink on some occasions, be playing sports, or chasing after girls. So, in a sense, reading does have it's loneliness characteristics.

But in other ways, it doesn't. Reading the Inferno, while you aren't bonding with friends in a physical sense, you're connecting to Virgil and Dante as they journey into Hell. Reading Crime and Punishment, you don't connect with your school/work/sports/whatever else goes here friends, but you bond with Raskolnikov as he has emotional and mental dilemmas.

So, while you're not hanging out with tangible friends, you're still building literary ones. So, to benefit the thread, I guess literature does have a loneliness attached to it, but you could also argue the contrary.

[JBI]

You make much sense St. Lukes, perhaps that is why your Spanish Poetry thread, and German Poetry thread have both died. In truth, I doubt we read the same books - as you say, I am obsessed with my beloved post-modernists (kind of silly, since I am quite un-postmodern, in terms of literary taste), that means I am not reading the same book - I have moved into a niche. Everyone is trapped in niches - there are too many texts.


Maybe if people just read limited selections - only American novels, for instance - they could get beyond that, but lets be honest, serious readers are solitary, because reading is a solitary act, and navigating through Borges' library is a solitary pursuit.


It doesn't matter though - I stopped reading novels a while ago, and doubt if I will have time for more than one or two a month for the next few years. As of now, my day is spent writing out little characters and sentences, and the world of literature seems like a distant glitter, beckoning me to learn faster as to enter it - but well I know that once I get there, everything will just as empty and uphill.


I can't really see myself discussing novels anyway though - perhaps poetry, which is something I do on occasion, but novels are just too freaking plot heavy - you need to research, and read through all of them to write about them, and when you do, it all seems so trivial and pointless. That's probably the reason for this so called "loneliness". The novel, as a form, is a lonely form, where hundreds of pages are required before discussion starts, and even then, the name dropping requires thousands of other pages.

Then again, that is kind of the point of novels, or the original idea at any rate - a sentimental sort of bourgeois pass-time for women with too much time, and too little liberty. Now it seems to have converted to anybody with a little free time.

Don't get me wrong, there are good novels, but novels don't work the same way as Drama or Poetry - they are solitary forms. Drama encourages audience - big audiences, and poetry has a knack of being far more openly connected with both the reader, and other poets than novels. It also works better at creating a relationship where things can be shared.

[mortalterror]

St. Lukes, you for instance seem inclined toward Spanish language materials, and a little bit of German. Drkshadow would seem inclined toward speculative fiction, Mortalterror toward classical writing, and Neely toward predominantly English Classics. I myself, I confess, have a somewhat eccentric taste - but where is the connection there?

Everyone of us has our own favorite niches... although I somewhat think you simplify matters far too much. Mortalterror certainly reads the Roman texts more than I... but he is also experienced in Hemingway, science fiction, Shakespeare and any number of other areas. My own reading tends to focus upon poetry and prose of the more "fantastic" nature (as opposed to the realistic novel) and draws as much from French, English, American, and Classical literature as it does from Spanish and German... with a healthy dose of Italian, Russian, Middle-Eastern/Arabic, and Japanese thrown in.

Thank you StLukes. I wouldn't want to get a reputation as a one trick pony. In addition to my usual suspects: Ovid, Horace, Statius, and Anacreon, I've been hitting up Firdawsi, Anwari, Hafiz, Rumi, Nizami, Jami, Vyasa, Kalidasa, Jayadeva, Po Chu-i, Xueqin, Halevi, Shelley, Pope, and Boswell. Though I did refresh my memory with a little Hemingway this week as well. My point is, I have diverse interests, but why read new books when I haven't read the old? I leave that stuff to JBI, and when he mentions somebody I give 'em a peep, same as I do with you. Like how you put me onto Miguel Hernandez a while back.

"Nobody puts Baby in the corner" and I wouldn't put StLukes in just one category either. Spanish and German seem to be just his temporary focuses of the moment. For instance, he's been talking a lot about Walton, Boswell, and De Quincey lately too. Drkshadow may have a preference for sci-fi, but don't forget my boy's got two masta's and that reading program of his is pretty spread out.

Can you only discuss a book with someone who shares your experience of the work? It would seem to me that someone with a different experience might bring a different perspective... come at the book from an angle fully new and unexpected by you. That would seem to be far more valuable than someone who merely parrots or reinforces your own experiences.

True dat, 'swhat I like 'bout JBI. We never agree on anything, but he knows how to play and he always brings his game. There's more to conversation than just agreeing on stuff. I learn from all of my friends and ignore those fools that got nothin' to teach.

[Lumiere]

There would seem to be much more in art that can be quite well understood by those who simply share the experience of being human as well as a degree of understanding of literature... music... art as a whole. If the dialog we have here is worthless as we all are products of different experiences (literary and otherwise) then what is the point of your participation?

Very true! To be human is to crave art, so while you may not share a love of Literature with another, you DO share a love of story, and beyond that....a love of art. Stories, which are created by humans, manifest themselves partly from imagination and partly from experience, and all experience at it's deepest root is akin to any other experience known to man. Based on this, is there really any experience in life, let alone the experience of reading a book, that can't be shared and understood by all humans on SOME level? (I can feel this discussion veering more and more towards the Philosophy section....)

[stlukesguild]

You make much sense St. Lukes, perhaps that is why your Spanish Poetry thread, and German Poetry thread have both died.

Don't forget the French thread or the several started on non-Western writers. Seriously, it seems difficult to sustain any discussion upon poetry and those that do continue are the ones that are sustained by one or two interested parties such as Quasi has achieved with his poetry threads, or Dark Muse with her posts on Sappho. Honestly, I've been too involved with the musical threads recently and not up to the efforts needed to sustain the poetry threads as well... but it something I will eventually address.

Certainly, I agree with you that the act of reading itself may be a solitary one. I don't know that I'd often like to engage in a group reading. The discussion of literature with other interested parties, however, does not seem to be something as rare or impossible as you suggest. Again... I can't imagine that persons obsessed with re-enacting the American Civil War or the Middle Ages can find enough like minded individuals to engage in not merely a dialog but an entire re-staging of Gettysburg or a medieval joust while finding someone who might have read something more than Harry Potter and might actually be interested in discussing Dante, Borges, or Tu Fu should be an impossibility. Again... if you insist upon wishing to lead the discussions and are only interested in obscure Chinese Modernist poets or Canadian novelists then you might have a far greater challenge lying ahead. On the other hand, if you are truly passionate about a given author or poet and offer up some examples and a bit of discussion of their work (not laden in the pretentious language of academia) I have little doubt that you would be more than likely to inspire a response and dialog.

Now I must set about reviving my French, German, and Spanish poetry threads.

[Jozanny]

I do not see why every new topic has to devolve around a log jam between luke and JBI with mortal doing his finest boast in the tradition of Beowulf. The act of reading has little to do with literary theory as a construct. Reading is an activity involving a series of skills, inclusive of literacy. I might be able to get through 30% of Jama with a good medical dictionary, whereas I could probably teach a decent survey course on Henry James and 19th century realism.

Is reading lonely? I dunno -- being that I am a cripple -- it filled that vast arena of my youth where I did not have the opportunity of going to the prom and getting laid by the captain of the football team, who I had a lust crush on, so it could be that lonely people read and grow up to be teachers, or successful drug addicts.

Reading is certainly an intimate activity, and I'd take Proust over Joyce any day and luke the opposite, and we'd entrench, and this is why some people make a living in the humanities.

But reading is also communal, which is why English lit departments and forums and book clubs exist. We may each have our foibles, but we all pretty much have the same body cavities, which is why certain areas of consensus develops when we discuss texts of mutual interests.

And as to German poets luke, it was never my field of study, and after reading the overwrought Werther, I'm glad.

[Scheherazade85]

Setting aside the supreme and consummate pleasure of indulging oneself in a good book, nothing compares to the pleasure of getting into a discussion, dialogue, or even a heated argument with someone (especially ones you care about) about a book, its characters, author, et cetera. It’s like carnal knowledge that becomes gratifying and fulfilling, sometimes poignant an experience if you are in the same exact rhythm and progression.

Your raw sentiments so eloquently and fluently brought to light are exactly what I am personally subjected to all this time. On second thought, well, not that much anymore, I guess. It’s like a certain kind of pain that has miserably lost its power to hurt.

In one of those unfortunate attempts to “share” a good book with a friend, I asked, with a helplessly translucent eagerness, “So which part of the book are you in now?” The answer I got was a goddam “I’m on page 26.” Dang it, she knows I hate numbers.

How dismal, I thought. But then I pondered and weighed whether isolation is bad. If you do, then you should take comfort in the thought that each of us has his own isolated side. Reading, extremely significant it may be to you, to me and to all of us who share the same passion, is only one aspect of our scheme of things and I think it wouldn’t hurt at all to make it that one thing that only you can take pleasure in. In my case, you have brilliantly spelled out the thought that I have taken comfort in, all this time: there is something intangibly beautiful about the isolation of reading. Moreover, I think it is unjust to expect, even to hope, for people to appreciate and grasp the act of reading the way you do, not to mention unachievable.

However, we do encounter people that possess a certain level of congruence and compatibility in terms of enjoying this curious passion that we so dearly treasure. I have found one—she’s a confidante, a rival, a critic and a timeless friend. I couldn’t be any luckier.

[mal4mac]

Glancing at your profile I'm guessing you went to Oxford, so all your friends were likely to have a *serious and rounded* interest in matters intellectual. Although your infectious enthusiasm is to be applauded, you had a captive audience that few others will find. I went to a slightly less prestigious university and hoped to have many of these kinds of discussions -- but they were thin on the ground. Now, outside university, they are not to be found at all -- except on the web.

I'd like to add, I don't mind this. I'd much rather read another tale by Tolstoy than talk to someone else about books. Tolstoy is more interesting than any 'someone else' I could find...

[Petrarch's Love]

Lumiere--Welcome to Lit. Net. As you can see, you have at least found yourself some virtual people to discuss books with.

As to the loneliness of reading, I would say that clearly it can be a solitary experience in that one does detatch one's self from others in order to read, but I've never thought of reading in and of itself as a lonely experience. One always has the company of the author and characters to stave off a sense of the loneliness. If anything, I would say that reading can help when one is going through a lonely period. To be lonely in terms of not having friends to discuss what you love with is a different thing, of course. I am very fortunate in being a graduate student in a literature department with lots of fellow book lovers to talk to. I've sought a career in literary study partly because I don't see reading as a lonely experience at all, but one that ideally involves engaging in conversation with fellow scholars, sharing and conversing with students, and also sharing a love of poetry and other literature with many other people I meet, some of whom may be readers themselves, but many who are not.

I can certainly see, however, how not being able to talk about your reading experiences with others could be lonely. I still don't think it's true, though, that being a reader means you have to be a lonely person. It can make you a richer and more interesting person socially in that it gives you stories to share, insights that may be interesting to others, etc. You may not be able to get the kind of shared enthusiasm for reading from your friends if it's not an interest of theirs, but that doesn't mean that little things you pick up or learn from reading can't enter into the conversation in a less direct way. It's true that if you are craving a deep conversation with fellow reading enthusiasts, then that is something you may have to seek out in terms of taking more classes, joining a book group, or logging on to lit. net.

I have moved into a niche. Everyone is trapped in niches - there are too many texts.

Help! I'm trapped in a niche and I can't get out!!! For goodness sake, JBI, of course we all read different things and in different ways, but that doesn't mean we can never talk with one another. As an academic I've taken on a very narrow specialization, Medieval and Renaissance Poetry, for the focus of my career, but that doesn't mean I have nothing to talk about with my colleagues who study the modern African American novel. If anything, having different "niches" encourages conversation. I'm curious about what someone else knows a great deal about and how that may or may not relate to the field I have read most deeply in. Or perhaps I just want to learn about something that bears no relationship to my field of specialty at all. It's the fact that we've all read different things that often encourages conversation because we're interested in finding out what we don't already know. You may be right that it is helpful if there are certain shared texts both parties have read when they engage in a conversation, but isn't it conversation itself that helps to establish and expand these shared texts? I know there are lots of books I would never have thought of reading if it wasn't that I was engaged in conversation with someone who recommended them, or simply enthused about them. If there's a certain kind of book you love that no one else seems to be reading then saying that it's your own little niche and no one else could possibly be interested will ensure that this is the case.

It doesn't matter though - I stopped reading novels a while ago, and doubt if I will have time for more than one or two a month for the next few years. As of now, my day is spent writing out little characters and sentences, and the world of literature seems like a distant glitter, beckoning me to learn faster as to enter it - but well I know that once I get there, everything will just as empty and uphill.

Is this implying that you're going in for an academic career? Or simply that you're studying literature intensely for its own sake? Don't go into anything that's truly going to be nothing but "empty and uphill" for you. "Uphill" may be inevitable for any pursuit taken up seriously and passionately, but if you're pursuing the right thing it should be full and rich and satisfying for you, and, even if it is true that the process of intensive reading and thinking does involve much solitary time, anything you pursue should ultimately help you feel productive and connected to others and to the world around you.

I can't really see myself discussing novels anyway though - perhaps poetry, which is something I do on occasion, but novels are just too freaking plot heavy - you need to research, and read through all of them to write about them, and when you do, it all seems so trivial and pointless. That's probably the reason for this so called "loneliness". The novel, as a form, is a lonely form, where hundreds of pages are required before discussion starts...

Whereas The Faerie Queene requires hardly any reading at all, and any first time reader of Donne can start parsing him right off the cuff?

Don't get me wrong, there are good novels, but novels don't work the same way as Drama or Poetry - they are solitary forms. Drama encourages audience - big audiences, and poetry has a knack of being far more openly connected with both the reader, and other poets than novels. It also works better at creating a relationship where things can be shared.

Well, you won't get too much argument from me about a defense of poetry and drama. I certainly think they're the forms most worthy of study.

I do not see why every new topic has to devolve around a log jam between luke and JBI with mortal doing his finest boast in the tradition of Beowulf.

Are you by any chance trying to draw any parallels between our ever pacific SLG and JBI and such characters as these: ? But then we always get one of your no nonsense, sensible responses as antidote, Jozanny.

Setting aside the supreme and consummate pleasure of indulging oneself in a good book, nothing compares to the pleasure of getting into a discussion, dialogue, or even a heated argument with someone (especially ones you care about) about a book, its characters, author, et cetera. It’s like carnal knowledge that becomes gratifying and fulfilling, sometimes poignant an experience if you are in the same exact rhythm and progression.

Wow. Clearly I've been joining the wrong book groups.

[kasie]

Oxford? I wish, m4m! I guess you have gleaned that I know a bit about the city - it's the Town, not the Gown bit that I know, from having family there and visiting frequently over the last twenty and more years. No, it was Red Brick followed by Ultra Modern (at the time) training for teaching. I was just lucky to find a group of people that liked talking - I learned a lot about their subjects from them, the exchange of enthusiasms was mutual. I learned a lot about engineering from my spouse and he once told me he read differently for having listened to me talking about the books that fired me. We had widely different tastes in books: by listening to him talking about his favourite authors, I broadened my own reading base. I can't say I converted him to Austen or Joyce but he was interested enough to listen to what I had to say about them and possibly go on to apply the criteria for assessing his own reading.

I guess I just like talking - and listening: no conversation is ever wasted, you learn something every time someone opens their mouth.

[Lumiere]

Aha! This whole discussion is making me realize something. I think I've been very silly. I think I've mixed up the cause and effect.

I proposed that immersing yourself constantly in stories provokes a certain loneliness. But now I'm beginning to think otherwise. Perhaps the loneliness is not the effect of reading, but rather part of the cause. I don't think I would read half as much if I didn't experience loneliness. Experiencing stories through the artistic venue of Literature is something that, like many of you are suggesting, alleviates, maybe even distracts loneliness. That being said, I don't think one has to be chronically lonely to really enjoy a good book. But there is a difference between enjoying books, and craving them as a thirsting man craves water; feeling that you need them.

Loneliness, by the way, is part of the human condition, and as everyone knows too well, you don't have to be alone to be lonely. Why everyone is lonely on some level, I don't know. Maybe it's because you can only be so close with another human, and when you lay your head on your pillow at night, you're still you, and not another soul can ever experience what you experience.

When you read you essentially experience life as someone else knows it. For me, I can get more into a book than is probably healthy. I feel what the main character feels, I begin to think how they think, even develop similar character traits for a short period of time. The strange thing is: why am I not satisfied with just experiencing my own life? Books, after all, are just artistic representations of reality as someone else knows it. If I were someone else, for example, I could read a book about Lumiere's life and find it a satiating and beautiful story. But as I am not someone else, I need to experience alternate versions of reality. I don't know why, but I do, and so do you.

In short: humans are strange and wonderful creatures.

[JBI]

Is this implying that you're going in for an academic career? Or simply that you're studying literature intensely for its own sake? Don't go into anything that's truly going to be nothing but "empty and uphill" for you. "Uphill" may be inevitable for any pursuit taken up seriously and passionately, but if you're pursuing the right thing it should be full and rich and satisfying for you, and, even if it is true that the process of intensive reading and thinking does involve much solitary time, anything you pursue should ultimately help you feel productive and connected to others and to the world around you.

Oh, I actually meant that quite literally. I study Chinese now, so don't have time to read through thousands of pages of text a week - I was referring to the Chinese literary world - which seems a distant glitter beckoning - but alas - I am at about 1000 of 4000 or so characters I need, and know none of the compound meanings, so it is an uphill drive, as I have stated, but it doesn't mean anything.

As for me taking an academic route - I still toy with the notion - I knew after my first year really that I needed to get away from English, and run as far as possible if I wanted to get anywhere in Academia. It seems English as a discipline has become a unwanted appendage, and is slowly being cut off by the knives of more "useful" subjects, so, ultimately, I picked up and ran. Of course, I toyed with Italian for a while, but that too seems to be a dying world - U of Toronto has the largest Italian department outside of Italy, but even that is being cut down severely. Alas, I landed on East Asian Studies (essentially Chinese Studies) and that seems to work - at least it is an expanding field, as apposed to a dying one. But will I go to Academia? Perhaps, perhaps not. I have the language requirements for several disciplines, but ultimately, whether I pursue anything related to my current education is debatable. At least, I think, by the end, I will have at least read something a little bit interesting, and be able to speak a few languages comfortably.


I wasn't exactly talking about discussing "literature" in the sense that I was talking about discussing "works" - in the sense of close reading. When it comes down to it, it comes down to only a few commonplace texts that people discuss, the rest is solitary. OK, we can discuss theoretical aspects perhaps, but when it comes to close reading - the world is too vast that only people with specific interests who fit into one's niche begin to be of any interest in that regard - in short, barely anybody.


For instance, I couldn't go to a dinner party, and discuss Spenser's Faerie Queene with many people - in short, if people ask me what I study now, I simply just respond with languages - it is far easier and less painful then explaining that in class we sit there and discuss different forms of allegory in Spenser, or sit there counting out substitutions in Astrophil and Stella - quite simply, nobody cares, and nobody, outside of a small niche, really knows what that means anyway.

Now that is a common place thing - try doing that with something like Gascoigne and where is one left with? Nobody particularly cares. Even someone like Tennyson seems like a niche, despite the fact that he is misquoted over and over again. The world is too fragmentary for a sustainable conversation on one text anyway - it always just points toward "text" in general, before people look at each other and ask, "why are we discussing this?"

[Hansfelter]

Lumiere, Great topic and I identify with much of what you say. I went for years wanting to have someone to discuss my readings with and feeling a bit lonely about that absence.
Finally, I connected with a group of 5 or 6 in our small town who had a "Great Books" group. None of us had literary-academic credentials so there was virtually no feeling of intimidation and a real comfort level in saying whatever you felt and analyzing each others remarks. It was great and I occasionally got some very ecstatic feelings during the discussion, probably because it was a dream come true to be with people who got excited about the books and short stories that moved me so much. I'm new here and have really enjoyed the posts. I feel a little out of my league with some but there seems to be a friendly respect given to everyone.